Re: ARIN Fraud Reporting Form ... (Resource listings yes, resourcerouting no)

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Oct 1, 2010, at 8:20 PM, George Bonser wrote:

> > We will shortly be providing a "list of number resources with no valid
> > POC"
> > for those who desire it (per the current bulk Whois policy.)
> >
> > > If you can put an annotation into a whois records for a POC,
> > > saying explicity that you can't get ahold of this person, then it
> > would
> > > seem to me to be a rather trivial matter of programming to
> transplant
> > > a very similar sort of annotation into each and every IP block or AS
> > > record that has that same specific POC record as one of its
> > associated
> > > POC records, either Admin, or Technical, or whatever.
> >
> > Also a nice idea, and one that I've taken as a formal suggestion for
> > improvement.
>
> Those two things would be enough for me for the numbers covered by
> agreement, the legacy issue is a tougher nut.  There should be some sort
> of requirement that any network being announced have a valid point of
> contact. Whose jurisdiction that would fall under for a global Internet
> beats me.

It's an individual decision of each organization choosing to accept and
further pass along the route.

Like it or not, there is not "THE INTERNET" there is a set of independent
networks operating under a commonly agreed framework of protocols.
Each network operator is free to accept, deny, or otherwise handle
any traffic they wish on any basis they choose.

This is the greatest strength of the internet. It is also it's most exploitable
weakness in some ways. However, changing it would fundamentally
destroy much of it's usefulness and resilience as a tool for the
democratization of communication. As such, I must oppose any
such move to apply greater central authority.

Owen